I don't accept that the so-called "free move" actually exists at all at present, nor that there exists a legal basis for it. It is a matter for the SoFA to enforce the legal reality and a matter for legal challenge if this is not done.

I disagree. The rule is that people may change their state of registration ("move") once every so and so often. An original registration is not a "move". The current interpretation is correct. It's only the misconception that this represents a "free move" that is throwing things off.

Quote

If fellow Senators want an end to strategic registration then the only manner to really accomplish it is through ending the current system of regional Senate seats - rendering such strategic registration pointless.

Absolutely.

Logged

"The secret to having a rewarding work-life balance is to have no life. Then it's easy to keep things balanced by doing no work." Wally

"Our party do not have any ideology... Our main aim is to grab power ... Every one is doing so but I say it openly." Keshav Dev Maurya

I don't accept that the so-called "free move" actually exists at all at present, nor that there exists a legal basis for it. It is a matter for the SoFA to enforce the legal reality and a matter for legal challenge if this is not done.

I disagree. The rule is that people may change their state of registration ("move") once every so and so often. An original registration is not a "move". The current interpretation is correct. It's only the misconception that this represents a "free move" that is throwing things off.

I agree that the original registration is not a "move" - but I think that's irrelevant.

Quote from: 7th Amendment

Persons may only change their State of registration once every sixty days.

The text refers to changing the State of registration, not "moving". I don't understand how any subsequent registration (fewer than 60 days after the original registration), purporting to give a different State, wouldn't fall foul of this provision.

I don't accept that the so-called "free move" actually exists at all at present, nor that there exists a legal basis for it. It is a matter for the SoFA to enforce the legal reality and a matter for legal challenge if this is not done.

I disagree. The rule is that people may change their state of registration ("move") once every so and so often. An original registration is not a "move". The current interpretation is correct. It's only the misconception that this represents a "free move" that is throwing things off.

I agree that the original registration is not a "move" - but I think that's irrelevant.

Quote from: 7th Amendment

Persons may only change their State of registration once every sixty days.

The text refers to changing the State of registration, not "moving". I don't understand how any subsequent registration (fewer than 60 days after the original registration), purporting to give a different State, wouldn't fall foul of this provision.

I don't accept that the so-called "free move" actually exists at all at present, nor that there exists a legal basis for it. It is a matter for the SoFA to enforce the legal reality and a matter for legal challenge if this is not done.

I disagree. The rule is that people may change their state of registration ("move") once every so and so often. An original registration is not a "move". The current interpretation is correct. It's only the misconception that this represents a "free move" that is throwing things off.

I agree that the original registration is not a "move" - but I think that's irrelevant.

Quote from: 7th Amendment

Persons may only change their State of registration once every sixty days.

The text refers to changing the State of registration, not "moving". I don't understand how any subsequent registration (fewer than 60 days after the original registration), purporting to give a different State, wouldn't fall foul of this provision.

An initial registration isn't a change.

Of course it is. It is a change in one's State of registration - from not being registered anywhere to being registered wherever. The evidence is the changes made to the voter rolls when new registerees arise.

If the first registration isn't a change, then one could make a nonsense surely of other aspects of electoral law. One could presumably vote without being registered anywhere - as an initial registration apparently doesn't change one's registration; therefore one would be as valid before being registered as after.

I don't accept that the so-called "free move" actually exists at all at present, nor that there exists a legal basis for it. It is a matter for the SoFA to enforce the legal reality and a matter for legal challenge if this is not done.

I disagree. The rule is that people may change their state of registration ("move") once every so and so often. An original registration is not a "move". The current interpretation is correct. It's only the misconception that this represents a "free move" that is throwing things off.

I agree that the original registration is not a "move" - but I think that's irrelevant.

Quote from: 7th Amendment

Persons may only change their State of registration once every sixty days.

The text refers to changing the State of registration, not "moving". I don't understand how any subsequent registration (fewer than 60 days after the original registration), purporting to give a different State, wouldn't fall foul of this provision.

An initial registration isn't a change.

Of course it is. It is a change in one's State of registration - from not being registered anywhere to being registered wherever. The evidence is the changes made to the voter rolls when new registerees arise.

If the first registration isn't a change, then one could make a nonsense surely of other aspects of electoral law. One could presumably vote without being registered anywhere - as an initial registration apparently doesn't change one's registration.

No. This is a voter registration. Not a move. I think it's safe to say I registered to vote just fine without changing states, and I only change my voter registration when I move. You have to be registered to change it. How can you change a nonexistent?

So what is the purpose of this amendment besides being unfair to members of Atlasia. February throws everything off, so saying 6 months could be inaccurate. 180 days would be more precise, and it would be fair.

It was Emsworth, one of Atlasia's greatest ever legal minds, who submitted the 7th Amendment originally - that which changed the wording from "two months" to "sixty days" back in October 2005.

I can't recall the reasoning behind it - nor is there reference to why it was done in the Senate debate on the Amendment at the time, nor in the Senate Legislation Introductory thread when it was introduced, nor from the then protest and analysis thread, nor in any of the legal cases I've checked, so I'm unsure as to exactly what the reasoning for the change was.

I'm nonetheless presuming there was a sound, and potentially legally significant, reason for that change - so unless and until it is established to my satisfaction otherwise, I will vote to retain the days rather than months system of measurement.

It was Emsworth, one of Atlasia's greatest ever legal minds, who submitted the 7th Amendment originally - that which changed the wording from "two months" to "sixty days" back in October 2005.

I can't recall the reasoning behind it - nor is there reference to why it was done in the Senate debate on the Amendment at the time, nor in the Senate Legislation Introductory thread when it was introduced, nor from the then protest and analysis thread, nor in any of the legal cases I've checked, so I'm unsure as to exactly what the reasoning for the change was.

I'm nonetheless presuming there was a sound, and potentially legally significant, reason for that change - so unless and until it is established to my satisfaction otherwise, I will vote to retain the days rather than months system of measurement.

It was Emsworth, one of Atlasia's greatest ever legal minds, who submitted the 7th Amendment originally - that which changed the wording from "two months" to "sixty days" back in October 2005.

I can't recall the reasoning behind it - nor is there reference to why it was done in the Senate debate on the Amendment at the time, nor in the Senate Legislation Introductory thread when it was introduced, nor from the then protest and analysis thread, nor in any of the legal cases I've checked, so I'm unsure as to exactly what the reasoning for the change was.

I'm nonetheless presuming there was a sound, and potentially legally significant, reason for that change - so unless and until it is established to my satisfaction otherwise, I will vote to retain the days rather than months system of measurement.

It was Emsworth, one of Atlasia's greatest ever legal minds, who submitted the 7th Amendment originally - that which changed the wording from "two months" to "sixty days" back in October 2005.

I can't recall the reasoning behind it - nor is there reference to why it was done in the Senate debate on the Amendment at the time, nor in the Senate Legislation Introductory thread when it was introduced, nor from the then protest and analysis thread, nor in any of the legal cases I've checked, so I'm unsure as to exactly what the reasoning for the change was.

I'm nonetheless presuming there was a sound, and potentially legally significant, reason for that change - so unless and until it is established to my satisfaction otherwise, I will vote to retain the days rather than months system of measurement.

It was Emsworth, one of Atlasia's greatest ever legal minds, who submitted the 7th Amendment originally - that which changed the wording from "two months" to "sixty days" back in October 2005.

I can't recall the reasoning behind it - nor is there reference to why it was done in the Senate debate on the Amendment at the time, nor in the Senate Legislation Introductory thread when it was introduced, nor from the then protest and analysis thread, nor in any of the legal cases I've checked, so I'm unsure as to exactly what the reasoning for the change was.

I'm nonetheless presuming there was a sound, and potentially legally significant, reason for that change - so unless and until it is established to my satisfaction otherwise, I will vote to retain the days rather than months system of measurement.